Search - considered

The appeal relates to income tax assessments for the 1975, 1976 and 1977 years in which the Minister of National Revenue assessed on income, rather than on capital account the gain realized by the appellant from the sale of a certain piece of real estate in 1975, and adjusted his reported income accordingly not only for that year, but for the years 1976 and 1977 to allow for reserves considered appropriate to the assessment situation arising out of that characterization of the gain as on income account. ... (Sic) — Mr Kalinowicz and Mr Wootton are actively involved in companies buying and selling real estate; — The Respondent considered all transactions involving sale of properties during 1975, 1976 and 1977 as business income and assessed the profit or loss therefrom accordingly; The Respondent submits that he has correctly included the amount of $11,675.00 for the Appellant’s 1975 taxation year, as income resulting from profits derived from a business within the meaning of sections 9(1) and 248(1) of the Act, and that he has duly assessed the Appellant for 1976 and 1977 pursuant to sections 12(1)(e) and 20(1)(n) of the Act. ... On that ground I must reject the contention of counsel for the respondent that the subject transaction should be considered as simply one item in an entire pattern of trading — which trading apparently extended through the taxation years in question up until at least the year 1978. ...

Extraordinary items should include only gains, losses and provisions for losses which, by their nature, are not typical of the normal business activities of the enterprise, are not expected to occur regularly over a period of years and are not considered as recurring factors in any evaluation of the ordinary operations of the enterprise. ... Mr Collins stated that he considered that it was a risky transaction on the part of the appellant; that it was a joint business venture with the producer and Libin; and that the profit or loss is only disclosed when the venture is concluded. ... Though, admittedly, the loan was for a short term in that the appellant was entitled to payments after each performance by Toller Cranston, such payments could be considered as a steady income from an investment comparable to interest payments. ...

Mr Hussey advised us that any adjustments which could be shown as applicable to Mr Thistle’s returns, for the years concerned, would be given consideration and deductions would be allowed to Mr Thistle where considered just and equitable. ... It took our staff together with the unending assistance of Mr Thistle almost three months to gather the information we considered necessary to make proper representation to Revenue Canada on behalf of Mr Thistle. ... These three points are considered below: (1) Under ordinary circumstances it may have been possible to gather the information necessary to present to Revenue Canada respecting the years 1974, 1975, 1977 and 1978. ...

As such, this venture was considered viable and had a reasonable expectation of profit. ... For the annual interest expense to be considered “reasonable in the circumstances”, surely it alone should not generally exceed the gross annual income. ... I conclude that, in the present circumstances, interest should not exceed the gross rental income in order to be considered a reasonable expense. ...

At first, it granted a deduction for a portion of the interest income considered to be part of the non-taxable operations of the Club in accordance with its past administrative policy. ... Alternatively, should I find that no separate business existed, counsel for Point Grey argued that the investment income should be considered as incidental to the club activities and not taxable as such. ... In Elm Ridge, I decided that the interest income could not be considered as an integral part of Elm Ridge’s “other business activities” because Elm Ridge did not carry on any business. ...

Subsection 15(1.1) of the Act states: 15(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where in a taxation year a corporation has paid a stock dividend to a person and it may reasonably be considered that one of the purposes of that payment was to significantly alter the value of the interest of any specified shareholder of the corporation, the fair market value of the stock dividend shall, except to the extent that it is otherwise included in computing that person’s income under paragraph 82(1)(a), be included in computing the income of that person for the year. ... Where in a taxation year a corporation has paid a stock dividend to a person and it may reasonably be considered that one of the purposes of that payment was to significantly alter the value of the interest of any specified shareholder of the corporation... ... The most obvious difference between subsections 15(1.1) and 55(2) is the inclusion in subsection 15(1.1) of the words “and it may reasonably be considered that one of the purposes...”. ...

In the appellant’s case, the second paragraph reads as follows: In support of your continued eligibility for the benefit, we need additional information to determine whether you may continue to be considered as the person who has been primarily fulfilling the responsibility for Evoléne’s care and upbringing since January 1993. ... The definition of “eligible individual” reads as follows in section 122.6 of the Act: “eligible individual” in respect of a qualified dependant at any time means a person who at that time (a) resides with the qualified dependant, (b) is the parent of the qualified dependant who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant, (c) is resident in Canada, (d) is not described in paragraph 149(1)(a) or (b), and (e) is, or whose cohabiting spouse is, a Canadian citizen or a person who (i) is a permanent resident (within the meaning assigned by the Immigration Act), (ii) is a visitor in Canada or the holder of a permit in Canada (within the meanings assigned by the Immigration Act) who was resident in Canada throughout the 18 month period preceding that time, or (iii) was determined before that time by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to be a Convention refugee, and for the purposes of this. definition, (f) where the qualified dependant resides with the dependant’s female parent, the parent who primarily fulfils the responsibility for the care and upbringing of the qualified dependant is presumed to be the female parent, (g) the presumption referred to in paragraph (f) does not apply in circumstances set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development, and (h) factors to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing may be set out in regulations made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development. ... Section 6302 of the Regulations reads as follows: For the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition “eligible individual” in section 122.6 of the Act, the following factors are to be considered in determining what constitutes care and upbringing of a qualified dependant: (a) the supervision of the daily activities and needs of the qualified dependant; (b) the maintenance of a secure environment in which the qualified dependant resides; (c) the arrangement of, and transportation to, medical care at regular intervals and as required for the qualified dependant; (d) the arrangement of, participation in, and transportation to, educational, recreational, athletic or similar activities in respect of the qualified dependant; (e) the attendance to the needs of the qualified dependant when the qualified dependant is ill or otherwise in need of the attendance of another person; (f) the attendance to the hygienic needs of the qualified dependant on a regular basis; (g) the provision, generally, of guidance and companionship to the qualified dependant; and (h) the existence of a court order in respect of the qualified dependant that is valid in the jurisdiction in which the qualified dependant resides. ...

The agent’s main argument is that the Minister ought to have taken into account the credit balance comprising of the Appellant’s payments concerning the New Housing Rebate when the Minister considered the application for the New Rental Rebate. ... It cannot now be argued that the Minister or this Court should have considered or consider the New Rental Rebate when assessing or validating the New Housing Rebate. [15] The New Housing Rebate is beyond the reach of the Minister and the Court. ... However, the Minister has, in the circumstances, properly considered and rejected both the New Housing Rebate and New Rental Rebate applications. ...

The appellant has the burden to establish that he did not earn that income and he failed to do so. [26] The determination of whether a taxpayer is entitled to deduct losses from his rental activities has been considered in many courts’ decisions and depends if the taxpayer has a source of income from a business or property. [27] In Sokil v. ... Thus, where the nature of a taxpayer's venture contains elements which suggest that it could be considered a hobby or other personal pursuit, but the venture is undertaken in a sufficiently commercial manner, the venture will be considered a source of income for the purposes of the Act.... [54]... ...

The section was enacted as a measure designed to thwart the use of offshore investment funds which permitted taxpayers resident in Canada a complete escape from or indefinite deferral of tax on passive income. [1] Subsection 94.1(1) reads in part: 94.1 (1) Where in a taxation year a taxpayer, other than a non-resident-owned investment corporation, holds or has an interest in property (in this section referred to as an “offshore investment fund property’’) (a) that is a share of the capital stock of, an interest in, or a debt of, a nonresident entity (other than a controlled foreign affiliate of the taxpayer or a prescribed non-resident entity) or an interest in or a right or option to acquire such a share, interest or debt, and (b) that may reasonably be considered to derive its value, directly or indirectly, primarily from portfolio investments of that or any other nonresident entity in (i) shares of the capital stock of one or more corporations, (ii) indebtedness or annuities, (iii) interests in One or more corporations, trusts, partnerships, organizations, funds or entities, (iv) commodities, (v) real estate, (vi) Canadian or foreign resource properties, (vii) currency of a country other than Canada, (viii) rights or options to acquire or dispose of any of the foregoing, or (ix) any combination of the foregoing, and it may reasonably be concluded, having regard to all the circumstances, including (c) the nature, organization and operation of any non-resident entity and the form of, and the terms and conditions governing, the taxpayer’s interest in, Or connection with, any non-resident entity, (d) the extent to which any income, profits and gains that may reasonably be considered to be earned or accrued, whether directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any non-resident entity are subject to an income or profits tax that is significantly less than the income tax that would be applicable to such income, profits and gains if they were earned directly by the taxpayer, and (e) the extent to which the income, profits and gains of any non-resident entity for any fiscal period are distributed in that or the immediately following fiscal period, that one of the main reasons for the taxpayer acquiring, holding or having the interest in such property was to derive a benefit from portfolio investments in assets described in any of subparagraphs (b)(i) to (ix) in such manner that the taxes, if any, on the income, profits and gains from such assets for any particular year are significantly less than the tax that would have been applicable under this Part if such income, profits and gains had been earned directly by the taxpayer,... ... According to the Appellant other investments were considered. The timing and extent of those investigations were not revealed. ...